Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8494347" data-attributes="member: 6987520">I agree with this. One thing I would love to see in D&D is tactical options actually worth doing. For example, consider knocking a target prone. Unless you have 3 or more attacks in a turn or you have allies nearby who can also benefit from the target being down, it is worthless because the target can simply stand up without hinderance on its next turn.But how do you balance that so people aren't always just knocking opponents prone when that becomes the better tactic?Interesting. So you want to steal another classes key features? Remember, monks are considered martials, too.I will agree on the better saves. In AD&D, although they started with the worst saves, Fighters had the best saves by the end, and I do miss that. I figure that is what the Indomitable feature was meant to represent.Ug, I swear it is like talking to a brick wall. When did I ever say I have a problem with characters that are "superheroic" in their capabilities, which the DMG actually states the PCs should be by tier 4. But that is in tier 4. In tier 1 the powers they have are not "superheroic", they are barely heroic, and when it comes to magic, that is because it IS magic.And the other martials classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue) all have capabilities by tier 4 which I certainly do qualify as "superheroic capabilities". Primal Champion, Survivor, Timeless Body, and Stroke of Luck could all be "super hero" powers in a super hero RPG. But D&D is not a super hero RPG, despite even those martial classes having features which are "superheroic" IMO. Since it seems you feel differently, why do we keep hashing over the same material again and again?You don't believe in magic!?! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /> SHAME on you! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> (j/k)In a world of magic, where magic is real, casting a spell is not a superpower. Literally, in 5E, anyone can choose to play a Wizard, even with a INT 3. What that represents is the chance to learn how to utilize it magic to cast spells. Look at all the creatures that are casters and can use spells because they know how to utilize magic--either by arcane or divine or primal means? So how is a 1st level spell superheroic? It isn't.Do many high level spells rival the superhero powers in other media/genres? Certainly, but they aren't superpowers. They are spells and magic.Which is why I have said if your tier 4 PC wants to be able to jump 500 feet, and the class/subclass feature allows it because you have learned how to tap into the weave (or whatever) to manipulate your weight, allowing you to propel yourself extraordinary distances, it is magic. Nothing prohibits martials from gaining magical features which are superheroic, but then IMO it is the magic.Consider Superman, how our Sun powers him (or whatever, I am not a comic expert...), is that magic? No. It is part of his superpowers. If you want to play in a D&D world were the environment, etc. can have such affects on a PC because it is part of their class/subclass features, knock yourself out. But no, I don't, and I wouldn't use such a class in my game world. That is my prerogative, just as using it is yours. But have I once said "No, don't make it, that is stupid"? No, I haven't. Yes I've been vocal on how I think it would be a good way to go about designing/ implementing it to help encourage greater adaptation, but that's it.That is your opinion, obviously, not mine. IMO casting a 1st level spell, however awesome, does not rival capabilities which are always present once gained like those examples.Since this is entirely a matter of opinion, there is no point debating it further. You can ignore the questions in my post, consider them rhetorical.Have a good game. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification